Wouldn’t it be good for all concerned if NZCSET and NIWA played nicely together and constructed a mutually agreeable and believable temperature time series for NZ?

Let me emphasise that when we asked NIWA what their adjustments were and why they made them, had they answered fully and frankly, we would now be in just such a collaboration. They were the ones to obstruct, delay and demonise.

]]>By: Richard Treadgoldhttps://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2012/11/a-question-for-venning-j/comment-page-1/#comment-144427
Wed, 14 Nov 2012 06:28:15 +0000https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/?p=15595#comment-144427Oh, man. You cut to the quick, Stanley!
]]>By: Richard C (NZ)https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2012/11/a-question-for-venning-j/comment-page-1/#comment-143681
Tue, 13 Nov 2012 05:52:55 +0000https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/?p=15595#comment-143681>”Wouldn’t it be good for all concerned if NZCSET and NIWA played nicely together and constructed a mutually agreeable and believable temperature time series for NZ?”

David Stockwell (Niche Modeling) is also in the process of compiling a cross-Tasman series so there’s more than just NIWA, NZCSET and BEST to consider as time goes on and the unadjusted, non-kriged data is showing just how unrealistic the outliers are.

]]>By: Simonhttps://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2012/11/a-question-for-venning-j/comment-page-1/#comment-143639
Tue, 13 Nov 2012 04:30:07 +0000https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/?p=15595#comment-143639Interesting to note that the HadCRUT4 time series for the southern hemisphere is only +0.3C from the 1961-90 mean. An eyeball analysis looks about +0.7C/century which gels with the BEST estimate for NZ. There is definitely more warming occurring in the northern hemisphere than here.http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/diagnostics.html
Wouldn’t it be good for all concerned if NZCSET and NIWA played nicely together and constructed a mutually agreeable and believable temperature time series for NZ?
]]>By: Stanleyhttps://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2012/11/a-question-for-venning-j/comment-page-1/#comment-143086
Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:18:58 +0000https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/?p=15595#comment-143086This solicitude for the valuable time of the Court doesn’t cut much ice.

In every case that comes before a judge, one side of the argument has to lose. Brandon, I suspect you take the view that every case that doesn’t win is wasting time. On that view of the world, the Court never does anything but have its time wasted.

And yes we know how this will turn out eventually irrespective of legal proceedings – a statistically valid (reviewed and corroborated) temperature series standing alongside a series of as yet unknown methodology (or at best a loose application of what was applied rigourously by NZCSET).

]]>By: Richard C (NZ)https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2012/11/a-question-for-venning-j/comment-page-1/#comment-143073
Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:51:57 +0000https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/?p=15595#comment-143073>”No, it would only mean that there is a lag from the surrounding temperature-moderating oceans.”

Are you conceding that oceanic influence is the dominant climate driver Simon? And what moderates ocean temperatures?

Just like GAT, there’s been no warming in the 7SS this century and no warming in GSST. The warming in the 7SS last century was natural variability (Salinger and Mullen). There’s minimal warming in the Southern Hemisphere record (“global” warming is a NH phenomenon) so to hold out a 7SS lagging after ocean is really just saying the ocean (after solar) controls climate.

If so, what specifically from his decision are you basing your conclusion on? What genuinely impartial but (hopefully) competent judge would overlook three professional statistical reviews for example?

It may come as a surprise to you Simon, but there are people, myself included, who after reading the decision have identified clear favour toward NIWA and they would rest easier if they knew Tahakopa was not a factor. especially given J Venning has been tardy in the past when recusing himself was the obvious action in similar circumstances. Even if Geoffrey Venning is no longer a party to Tahakopa, are say, his children beneficiaries to a trust that is and wouldn’t that play on his judgment?

Climate related issues polarize today’s society and judges are part of society just like everyone else, so it is to be expected some will have partisan views on climate change depending on their exposure to the issue e.g. here:-

Neither can judges always be relied upon to get facts right in a climate related case (or any case for that matter) even at the appeal stage of proceedings e.g. in the Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA appeal decision, 3 judges reported that in their opinion the IPCC assessment reports were peer-reviewed.

Obviously, in view of the background of public contentiousness, there is an even greater imperative for the appellant to take every opportunity to make full legal recourse if some circumstance leaves doubt as to impartiality. If it turns out that J Venning or his family has a pecuniary interest in the ETS via Tahakopa, shouldn’t J Venning’s conduct (but not the legality or correctness of his decision – that is by appeal) then be referred to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner under the Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004? That is EXACTLY what the Office is for apparently:-

The purpose of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner is to:

> enhance public confidence in, and
> protect the impartiality and integrity of the judicial system.

Now is the time to have these questions answered and appeal rights exercised, that is the appellant’s right Simon. Or would you prefer that in this case the appellant just went quietly away, left rights un-exercised, payed in full for a possibly partial decision and stopped rocking the climate change boat as it were, preferably for evermore because the dissent of persisting offends you Simon?

The 7SS is very much a part of NIWA’s grandstanding (read – political advocacy) on climate change, hence their statement “warming over New Zealand through the past century is unequivocal” e.g. here:-

“Such site differences are significant and must be accounted for when analysing long-term changes in temperature. The Climate Science Coalition has not done this.”

Rubbish of course. NZCSET made adjustments strictly in accordance with Rhoades and Salinger (1993) but NIWA’s 0.9 C trend was not reproduced, instead a mere 0.34 C, since corroborated by a GHCN-based series. Without that extra 0.56 C, NIWA’s grandstanding just does not have political punch so for them it is crucial to preserve but statistically it hasn’t because the NZCSET 7SS is statistically valid irrespective of J Vennings legal decision.

Now wouldn’t it be a good look for the judiciary if after appeal, their legal decision recognized the statistical merit of the NZCSET 7SS?

]]>By: Simonhttps://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2012/11/a-question-for-venning-j/comment-page-1/#comment-143038
Mon, 12 Nov 2012 08:40:36 +0000https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/?p=15595#comment-143038I obviously have a lot more faith in the legal system of this country than you do. A lawyer has to be pretty well-respected to become a judge. Some might be conservative and pedantic but I think they’d all be pretty honest. Suggesting that Justice Venning’s judgement was clouded because he has a part-share in a forest is, to be frank, absurd. The NZCSET are employing the same tactic as Bradbury and Muir tried with Trinity and look where it got them.
]]>